The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.planning.264511100003 (1986)(2)DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat copies (11x17) PARCEL.ID: 2645-111-00003/02 '' DATERCVD: ~- #COPIES:~ CASENO P25A-86 CASE NAME: Jensen Resic PROJ ADDR: 4001/3333 Si OWN/APP: Jensen, Robert REP:~- Email Addr:~ FEES DUE: ,1a .. MTG DATE CLOSED: ~- PLAT RECORDED VR APPROVAL DA „r CASE TYP:~ Resid (! C C File GMP & 1041 HR Planners ass Creek Rd ADR~~ CISIZ:~- PHN:~- ADR:~ C/S2i~PHN:~ ALLOCATED HOURS: .FEES RCVD:~` % OVER: ~- REF:. BYr DUE: REV BODY ?PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION: No ~- BOCCReso: ~. 86-99 ~. NO ~ ., ~ r ' No I BOCC Ord: -00-001 PZ: 86-27 86-24 HRG OFF: BY: ~- HO INDEX:.. ADMIN: r`"~"-" - PLAT (BK,PG): 619 P11 #281735 ADMININDEX: TE:.,~- ~ VREXPIRES;,~- ential GMP CASE TYPS: HR CASE TYPE: '.. CASE TYP7:; Date Scanned: 9/18/09 176 CASELOAD SDMl~ARY SHEET ' PITRIN CODNTY DAT E DAT E RECEIV ED- k:'ec' p ~_ RECEIV ED COMPLETE: PROJ ECT NAME: APPLICANT: }iQ/a'.C Applicant Address RE PR ES EN TAT IV E Representative Address/Phone: Type of Application: I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD 2~~~~ -j0/- bo •cc~ CAS E EIO. t ~ 6 ~C~ STAFF: 1. General Submission 20 ~ $2,800.00 2. Detailed Submission 13 1,820.UO 3. Final Plat 5 700.00 II. Subdivision/PUD 1. General Submission 13 $1,680.00 2. Detailed Submission 10 1,400.00 3. Final Plat 5 700.00 III. All "Two Step" Applications 9 $1,260.00 IV. All "One Step" Applications 5 700.00 V. Referral Fees - Environmental Health, Housing, Engineering, Environmental Coordinator 1. Minor Applications 2 $ 50.00 (per Referral Agency) 2. Major Applications (per Referral Agency) 5 $ 125.OOX - --------------- P&Z BOCC MEETING DAT .: a PUB IC HEA ING- YES NO r DAT F. REFE ED: INITI ----------- ---- LS: ---- - P.EFERRALS -------- ----------- ___________ -- _____ ____________________ ~_G County P.tty __ ;/ Count En r As en onsol. S. D. School District y g FEtn. ell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas dousing Dir. _/ Bnvir. Coordinator State Hwy Dept (Glenwd) _ Aspen Watec Holy Cross Electric __ State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) ~~ City Electric Fire Marshall Bldg: Zoning/Inspect r, Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief _~ Colo. GeologicSurvey County Myr- / Snowmass Village USES Div. Wildlife FTN _~ Div. Water Resources Mt Sopris Soil State Planning Off. Water Conservation ed _ Trails Dir. Other . Other: _~ Roaring Fork Energy Center ~. INAL ROUTING : nA9'h ROU'CEU: __ IN ITIAL - County Atty __ Eiousing Director _ Other: County F,ngineer Envir. Health - Other: Building Dept. Envir. Coordtr i i .. C~. ~~ -~ ~ y J°~ 3 ~~ RESOLUTION OF`THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITEIN CODNTYr COLORADOr GRANTING AN ALLOCATION IN THE 1986 DOWN VALLEY RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGSMBNT COMPETITION Resolution No. 86- 99 WHEREAS, on June 1, 1986, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office did receive three (3) Down Valley Residential Growth Management Applications; and WHEREAS, the applications received were as follows: Application Name Allocation Requested Aspen-Mass Ranch 3 Free Market, 1 Employee Unit The River Road Ranch 1 Free Market, 1 Employee Unit Jensen 2 Free Market Units and WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") held a public hearing on~September 2, 1986, to review the above Growth Management Applications; and WHEREAS, the Commission scored the above projects as follows: __ Aspen-Mass Ranch 80.20 Points The River. -Road Ranch 92.20 PoiIIts --.-.. --- Jensen 91.30 Points and. has forwarded these scores to the_ Pitkin County Board of--- County Commissioners (hereinaf ter "Board") pursuant to Section 5- 510.5(a)(4) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code; and WHERSAS, on September 22, 1986, the Board held a public meeting on said applications and did review the scores forwarded to it by the Commission; and WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office has calculated the available Growth Management Quota for 1986 ~~t~o be ten (10) units Recorded at =~~1'c~oc~~ y" a-3- ~ ~ Reception No nn LORETTA BANNER PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER ~ ,~ . o k ~ x~ r ~ ~3 ~ ~~ " -i L ~.Q . Fo!:~ P.C~Ii <s m s G)'{' ~. ~ n oz W zm o ~ o, m rn ~ RESOLUTION OF THE PiTRIN COUNTY PLANN.LNG AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING THE JENSEN 1041 WILDLIFE AND GEOLOGICAL HAZARD REVIEW Resolution No. 86-27 WHEREAS, on September 2, 1986, the Yitkin County Planning 'and Zoning Commission {hereinafter "Commission"} reviewed an application submitted by Robert N. Jensen (hereinafter "Appli- cant"), requesting 1041 Yiildlife and Geologic Hazard Review approval for two (2} residential home-sites on a 269 acre parcel located on Snowmass Creek ~.aad adjacen± to the eastern boundary of the Windstar property, as more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a public hearing on September 2, 1986, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to the aforesaid application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby approve the Jensen 1041 Hazard Review for the construction of two residential homesites on the property described in Exhibit "A", subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of ary Building Permits, the Appli- cant shall record a 24" x 36" mylar site plan which meets the approva:t of the Planning Office and County Attorney. Sa?.d site plan shall include the Building Envelopes and access drives as represented by the Applicant. 2. Prior to issuance of a Auilding Permit, the Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the geologic reports dated April 14, 1986, and July 7, 1986; .prepared by Nicholas La;npiris; and attached hereto, as Jensen 1041 Razard Review Resolution No. 86-27 Page 2 ATTEST: PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING September 16, 1986. BOOK 5.1.9 P~~E~~l Exhibits "B" and "C," respectively. 3. To mitigate wildlife impacts, all dogs on the property shall be kenneled. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on ~A/~.2ttj r'~~/Pl~ Barbara Norris, Records Administx•ator Assistant AND ZONING COMMISSION By Peter uy Vice Chairman FK.10 '~ LCWL CCSCPIPTION: ~onK 5:l ~ ,~~~ ~~~ A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTIONS 2, J ANO 11, TONNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 86 NE57 OF THE S7XTH PRINCIPAL rD:A1 DI AN, HORS FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGYNNSNG AT A POINT MHENC£ THE NOR771NEST CORNER OF SA3D SECTION 2 (A BRA55 CAP FOUND IN PLACE) 6EAA5 N 07'01'17' N 1871.6$ FEE7J - 7NENCE 5 39'27' E 197.00 FEEY; THENCE 5 71.27' E 101.1D FEET; THENCE S 18.2]' E 90.00 FEET; THENCC S J9.OB' E 177.20 FEET.: THENCE 5 77.51• E 116.67 FEET; THENCE S 57.00' E 130.67 FEET: TNCNCE 5 16•]7' E 6$.00 FEET; THENCE S 17.1(° E 818.11 FEET; THENCC S 71'/7'/1" E 2152.75 FEET; THENCE S 58.01'70• E 771.20 FEET: ' TNCNCE 5 06.56'2 J' N 231.76 FEET; 7NENCE S 27.29.29' N 110.91 FEETt THENCE 5 20.01'$8' N 107.05 FEET; THENC£ S 01.22'16' N 629.6< FEETt 7NENCE S 06'26.12° E J7J.77 FEET; TNCNCE S 18'78' E 1]6.00 FEET; THENCE N 86']8'17° E 917.1]FEETt THENCE EAST 211.33 FEET; THENCE 5 89.57'11' E 431.18 FEET TO THC CENTERLINE OF $NONHAS$ CREEK ROAD; 7NENCE CONTSN UING ALONG SA]D CENTERLINE THE FOLLCNYNG r,. COURSES AND DISTANCES: 622.79 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADI U$ OF 611O120FEET); (J3J.20OfEETFA ONGHABCURVENTO2THE,RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1175.00 FEET (THE CMO RD OF NHICN BEARS N 23.05'00' N )72,08 F£ET7; N 12.57'7$' N 756.99 FEET; N 12.78'C1° N 197,21 FEET, 192.97 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADI U$ OF 298.20 FEET (THE CHORD OF M1ICH BEARS N OS•S 1'19' E 189.62 FEET), N 21'26'38° E J19.p5 FEET, 177.18 FEET ALONG A CURVE 7'O THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 108.92 FEET (THE CHORD N F00.22HS2fAN 2061.8J,FEETE 2125269FEETTALONG A CURVE ,~ TO THE LEFT, FUVING A RADIUS OF 22).77 FEET (THE CHORD OF F711CM BEA PS N 27'13.37° N 201.30 FEET), N S$•0/'27' N 60.00 FEETt 7NENCE DEPARTING FROM SAID CENTERLINC, N 21.18'29' E 727.50 FEET; ~~ THENCE N 00.26' E 327.96 FE E7J 7NENCE N 00.25'<S• E 615.69 Fi P.T; TNCNCE S 09.5$'07' N 172.1$ F':i7; THENCE S 17.00• N 980.60 FEET: 7NENCE S 60'26'0)• N 1082.22 fBET; THENCC N 11'17'<0• N 1219.17 7EETt THENCE S 00'00'37' C 613.87 FEET; THENCE H ]1.17'00• N 788.28 FEET; THENCE N ]/•7$• M 000.60 FEET] TH[NC[ N 51•]9' N 151.00 FEET; TNCNCE N 11.51' N 558.10 FEET; ,,,777~~~ THENCC N 18.51' N 277,20 FEET; THENCC S JI. 7]' N 71S.Oq FCET TO TIIE POINT OF OEGINNING, CONTAINING 200 DO ACRLS~r HO RC EXHIBIT "A" Resolution 86-27 n 1 V\1 ~n l~ 1 'V~\ V ~I rUUR J.it.c`7 P~Gt l ~f} - Nicholas Lamp~ris, PhD COMULTwG GEOLOGIST P.O.80X 10935 ASPEN, COLORADO BId72 (707) %J-M00 9256020 ASPEN OFFICE April 14, 1986 Broob;e Peterson 315 E. Hyman Suite 305 Aspen, CO. 81611 FE: Jensen Property/Driveway Dear Mr. Peterson: Exhibit "E" £esolution #86-27 I have viewed the driveway accessing the upper meadow where the Jensen improvements are. The driveway is cut in Quaternary age glacio-fluvial terrace deposits which consist of poorly sorted and poorly graded clays, silts, sands, gravels and. cobbles. Although the driveway is a little steep, approaching eight to ten percent grade in one stretch, it is well constructed with a good base, There is no evidence of slumping or other instability at this time on the cut bank side of the road. The underlying bedrock in this area is the Cretaceous age Mancos Shale which dips approximately twenty degrees to the south, or generally into the hillside. On balance, this is a positive factor, but the eroded surface of the shale beneath the glacial deposits probably slopes into the valley. This, in conjunction with an irrigation ditch which crosses the hillside above the steeper part of the access road, could cause instability and potential failures along the road cut. This potential, of course, would be magnified if the ditch itself were to fail. My recommendations are to irrigate this section of the pasture on the terrace above the road carefully, and to leave water in this particular ditch for as short a period of time as passible. Obviously, the ditch should be well maintained so as to keep the potential for failure at a minimum. Yn the fall, after the irrigation season is over, this portion of the ditch above the road should be made to catch and carry as little spring runoff as possible. Despite possibly decades of irrigation at this site,_I saw no significant signs of instability along the access road and expect little trouble with mass wasting, especially if the above recommendations are followed. Please contact me if there are further questions. S~incere~/l-1y,~/Z N h ~as Lamp"` s N1/cik Consulting Geologist emit 3 L y ~e~ I ~'7 ~,_, Nicholas Lampiris, PhD CANSULTlNG GEOLOGIST v.o. eox togas ASGEN, COLORADO 81612 p0a)%3•]600 92sd020 A5f'EN OFFICE July 7, 1986 Brooke Peterson 315 E. Hyman Suite 305 Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: Snowmass Cree4-, 1441 Study Dear Mr. Peterson: Exhibit "C" P..~ge 1 of ,solution tr86-27 I have completed my geologic investigation of Lot 12 of the Jensen property in the Snowmass Creek valley. The roughly triangular shaped lot is approximately 70 acre=_ along the west side of the Snowmass Creek Road. This is within the SE 1/4 of Sec. 2, T 9 S, R 85 W of the Si::th P. M., within the Woody Creek 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado. None of the property goes beyond the base of the steep hillside to the west. The building site as shown on the accompanying map is near the west central portion of the lut. The topography of the proposed site consists of irrigated pastl.zre interspersed with groves of scrub oak:. The site is quite flat and is more than BO feet away from the base of the steep hillside. There are no existing structures on this site. The geology of the site consists of surficial deposits of glacio-fluvial origin of Quaternary age. This is in the form of poorly sorted silts, sands and gravels on a terrace above the present level of Snowmass Creek. :Underlying this material, perhaps 50 to 100 feet below the surface, is the Cretaceous age Mancos Shale which in this general area dips appro:<imately 15 degrees to the south.' There are no other geologic structures which could adver$ely affect this site. The building site as depicted is far enough away from the base ^f the steep hill to the west so .as not to be affected by any gravity related phenomena there. There are no significant gullies on that hillside which could have an affect on the building site. ...This is pan a;<cellent site for the development of a single family dwelling, but high ground water conditions should be expected, especially during irrigation season. It will still be necessary to have a soils engineering study prepared to insure proper foundation design and to protect against potential high ground water conditions. • '' .. . July 7, 198b Snowmass Creel; 1041 Study, Page Two Exhibit "C" Page 2 of 2 Resolution ~r86-27 Access to the site should be easily attainable off the Snowmass Creek: Road on grade to the site, but several culverts may be necessary because of the irrigation system in place. Water for domestic use should be available through the drilling of a well to a depth of perhaps lUO feet. Waste disposal should be available through the construction of a septic system with accompanying leach field in these permeable sails. Once again, the complicating factor may be the potential for high ground water, the Pitkin County Sanitation Engineer should be consulted for his specific recommendations. Please contact me if you have further questions. Sincerely, -/ .I :l. ~ i,,.•jw' ~,...,~~~ Nicholas Lamp i Consulting Geologist encl. NL/cl k. RBSOLUTION OF THB PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BSTABLISHING THB SCORING FOR THB 1986 PITKIN COUNTY DOWN VALLBY RBSIDBNTIAL GROWTH MANAGBMBNT COMPBTITION Resolution No. 86-24 WHBRBAS, on June 1, 1986, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office did receive three (3) Pitkin County Down Valley Residential Growth Management applications submitted pursuant to Section 5- 510.5(a)(1) of the Land Ilse Code; and WHBRBAS, the applications received were as follows: Application Name Allocation Request Aspen-Mass Ranch 4 Units The River Road Ranch 2 Units Jensen 2 Units and WHBRBAS, the quota available for allocation in 1986 is 12 units, since according to Section 5-510.2 of the Code, the 24 unit annual Down Valley quota must be reduced by the 12 units built in 1985 pursuant to exemptions from the quota system; and WHBRBAS, on September 2, 1986, the Pitkin County Planning end Zoa~ing Commission (hereinafter "Commission") did conduct a public hearing pursuant to Section 5-510.5(a)(3) of the Code, requiring a public hearing be held in order to review growth management applications; and e 1986 Down Valley Residential Growth Management Scoring Resolution No. 86-24 Page 2 review the growth management applications and gave consideration to evidence and testimony presented at said hearing. NOW, THHRgFORB, BB IT RBSOLVSD by the Commission that it does hereby establish the following scoring of the Pitkin County Down Valley Residential Growth Management application submissi- ons: Project Name Total Score The River Road Ranch 92.2 Jensen 91.3 Aspen-Mass Ranch 80.2 AND IN SUPPORT THBRBOF, incorporated by this reference the Commission's Tally Sheets as Bxhibit "A-1," "A-2," and "A-3," attached hereto. BB IT ALSO RBSOLVBD that the Commission does hereby forward said scoring to the Board of County Commissioners for their action with respect to the granting of a 1986 Down Valley Residential Growth Management Allocation. BB IT FINALLY RBSOLVBD by the Commission that since the above scores are all above the minimum threshold and the quota available exceeds that requested, it does hereby recommend to the Board that the following allocations be granted subject to the applicants' receiving approval of their respective associated reviews from the Board of County Commissioners: 1986 Down Valley Residential Growth Management Scoring Resolution No. 86-24 Page 3 Project Name The River Road Ranch Jensen Aspen-Mass Allocation of Units 2 Units 2 Units 4 Units regular meeting on APPROVED by the Commission at its September 16, 1986. ATTEST: ~/~ri~~,r Ni~r~~ Barbara Norris, Records Administrator Assistant PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By Peter u Vice Cha rman FK.15 Project Nave: ASPEN-MASS RANCH 1 raskeY 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC A!® PRIVATE FACILITIES AND SERVICES a. Water 1 b. Sever 2 e. Story Drainage L d. Fire Protxtion l e. Sehool SYSte® ^_ f. Recreational Facilities 3 g. Road SYSten 2 h. Public b Private Transit 2 ~btotal 2. EFFECT UPON THE ENVIRONTffNT a. Air Pollutia~ 3 b. Water Resources ----- 2 c: Open Space." d. Natural 6 Han-Ma~~ Hazards 2 e. Visual Vulnerability D f. Nildlife Habitat 2 g. Natural Vegetation 2 Subtotal 3. ~ COk~RVATIDN MEASURES a. Energy Ca~servatia~ 1 b. Hater Cmservation~Nasteuater 1 EXHIBIT 'A-1' 1986 DDNNVALLEY AREA RESIDENTIAL 9~ APPLICATION TALLY SHEET P62 VOINT6 MEMBERS 2 3 4 Meehan Nnuwltco fleser Date: Septerber ±, 198ti 5 AVERAGE MULTIPLIER TOTAL Dobravolny (X) 2 2 2 1 1_6 1 2 3 - G <yC L 2 Z 2 2 2_D 1 2 2 2 2 1_8 1 2 ? _0 1 3 3 3 3 3_0 1 2 2 2 2 2_0 3 2 3 2 2 2_2 3 3 2 3 3 2_8 2 2 1 2 2 1_8 3 2 1 2 0 1_4 3 ^ 1 2 2 1_3 3 2 1 1 0 _8 3 2 1 2 2 1 8 3 _ 1 2 1 1 6 3 2 _ I 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.0 1.2 2 2 1.6 y2 2.0 1.8 2.0 3.0 ti.0 h._ X5.20+ 5.6 5.4 42 54 2_4 5.4 4.8 33.20+ 2.0 2.4 Reuse c. Agricultural Land Preservation 1 2 0 1 0 Subtotal 4. EMPLOYEE HOISIl6 PROVISION 15 15 15 15 15 5. GEVc1DPlENT 9ELON ALLONABtE DENSITY 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Miniai® Threshold _9 ~ 2_4 6.60 15.00 l 15_00+ -~ 1 -~} 90.20= ~.~ EXHIBIT 'A-2' 1986 Og1NALLEY AREA RESIBENTIAL 61p APPLICATION TA11Y SLEET Protect Nacre: JEHSEtf Date: Septetler 2, 1?BA P62 VOINi& MEMBERS 1 2 3 4 5 AVERAGE MULTIPLIER TOTAL Caskey Meehan Knowlton Reser Oobrovolny IX) 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FACILITIES AND SERVICES a. Rater 2 2 2 2 2 2_0 1 2_0 b. Sewer " 2 2 2 2 2_0 1 2_0 c. Stcra Drainage ? ? 2 ? ? 2_G 1 2.0 d. fire Protection 2 2 2 2 = 2_0 1 2.0 e. Sch~l Systea 2 ? 3 ? 2_2 1 2_2 f. Recreational Facilities 2 2 2 2 2 2_0 1 2_0 g. Road Systeo 2 2 1 2 2 1_8 3 5_4 h. Public d Private Transit 2 2 2 ? 2_0 3 h_0 Ito*.al "<=.~C' 2. EFFECT UPON THE ENVIAONIENI a. Air Pollution 1 2 1 1 1 1_2 2 2_4 b. Hater Aesances 2 2 1 2 2 t_8 3 5_4 c. Open Space 3 3 1 3 2 2_4 3 7_2 d. Natural 6 Man~lade Hazards 2 2 1 2 2 1_2 3 5_4 e. Visual Vulnerability 2 2 2 I 1 1_6 3 4_8 f. Wildlife Habitat 1 1 0 2 1 l_0 3 3_O g. Natural Vegetation 1 1 2 2 1 1_4 3 4_2 Subtotal ~32_A0+ 3. `~`..'.~'°~ CONSERVATIdJ tEA.~1RES a. Energy Conservation 1 1 1 1 1 1_0 2 2_0 b. Hater Conservation/Wastewater 0 0 0 0 1 _2 2 _4 Reuse c. Agricultural land Preservation 2 2 1 ? Subtotal 4. Q6LOYEE NOOSING PROVISION 10 l0 10 10 l0 5. DEVELOPMENT BELON pLLONABIE DFISITY 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 _ 17_5 TOTAL Miniauai Threshold _ 1.6 3 5.1 1.80+ 10.0 10.00+ liS 1 17.504 91.30= 80.00 EXTIIBIT 'A-S' 1986 DONNVALLEY AREA RESIDENTIAL 81W APPLICATION TALLY SKEET Protect Naae: THE RIVER SAD RANCH Date: Septe~ber 2, 19P5 P62 VOINT6 MEMBERS l 2 3 4 5 AVEAA6E MDLTIPLIER TOTAL faskey Meehan Knowlton Aeser Dobravolny (X) 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FACILITIES AND SERVICES a. Rater -- _.D 1 2 0 b. Sewer 2 ? - 2.0 1 20 c. Stcra Drainage 2 ? ? 2 2 ?.0 1 2 0 d. Fire Protection 2 2 2 2 ? ?.0 1 2_C e. School SYStea 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 1 2_0 f. Recreational Facilities 2 2 2 2 2_0 1 2_0 g. Road SYstew 1 ? 1_8 3 5_4 h. Public 6 Private Transit 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 3 6_O Sv<'`titoi ~~='~~ 2. EFFECT UPON THE ENYIAOHfNT a. Air Pollution 2 2 1 1 1.6 2 3_2 b. Rater Resources 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 3 6_0 c. Open Space 2 2 2 2 1 1_8 3 5_d d. watural d Man-Male Hazards 2 2 1 2 2 1;3 :i 5_4 e. Visual 'fulnerability 2 2 ? ? ? 2.0 3 ti 0 f. Nildlife Habitat 2 2 1 3 1 t.8 3 5_4 g. Natural Vegetation 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 3 t0 Subtotal =~ ~ wiSERVATION iFASu'~S J. a. Energy Conservation 1 1 2 1 1 1_2 2 2_4 b. Rater Conservation/Nasteuater 2 2 2 2 1 1_8 2 3_6 .. R~,~ c. Agricultlirai LanC Preservation 2 2 I Subtotal 4. EMPLOYEE H016IN6 PROVISION ~ 2O ^f1 20 ~~ S. DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY 0 0 O 0 0 TOTAL Miniaua Threshoii i.a a s_a 11.40+ 20.0 1 20_OQ+ 0 1 .00+ 92.20= 80.00 January 22, 1987 Brooke Peterson 315 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Robert N. Jensen Employee Housing Fees Dear Brooke, In response to your January 9, 1987, letter to Peggy Seeger, I have attached the memo from Ann Bowman which was included in the September 2, 1986, Planning Commission packet. As you can see from Ann's memo, we were aware of the discrepancy between the 526,300 which Bob committed and the 526,600 required by the Land Use Code. The dollar amount is set by the Land Use Code and Housing Authority and cannot be raised or lowered upon the whims of either the applicant or staff. The important factor is the commitment to provide a payment for the moderate income level- that commitment is the basis for the GNP score you received. I believe that Mr. Jensen was charged the correct amount which is 513,300. if you have any further questions please feel free to call me. Have a nice day, Francis X. Rrizmanich, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office FR/ds cc: Peggy Seeger Ann Bowman LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON APROFES SIO NALCORPORATION 315 EAST HVMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 13031 9 2 5-8166 January 9, 1987 Ms. Peggy Seeger Pitkin County Building Department 517 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Robert N. Jensen Employee Housing Fees Dear Peggy, In order to straighten out the disagreement regarding Mr. Jensen's employee housing fees which are owing pursuant to the Resolution 86-99 granting G.M.P. approval to him for two (2) units on his property in Old Snowmass (a copy of which is enclosed), I am also enclosing a copy of the pertinent pages of Mr. Jensen's application where he agreed to pay the total sum of Twenty Six Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($26,300.00) in fulfillment of his employee housing obligations. I do not believe that this amount was questioned by staff upon review of Mr. Jensen's application, and the Resolution of approval certainly does not make approval conditioned upon an agreement to pay any more than this amount. Accordingly, I must insist, given that Mr. Jensen has paid the sum of Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($13,300.00) to you under protest in order to fulfill his obligation for the first free market unit, that he be issued a rebate of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) immediately. Admittedly, this is a small amount, but Mr. Jensen and I feel that, by virtue of the sterilization of his property, he has already provided substantial benefits to the County. By a copy of this letter to Francis Krizmanich of the Planning Office, and Ann Bowman of the Housing Office, I am asking them to confirm to you my representations, and to please contact me immediately if they disagree with my position. Thank you for your assistance. Yours very trul BROOECE A. PETS ~ON, A Profes na orpor tion By: r ke A. Pet rs n BAP:kl Enc. cc: Robert N. Jensen Francis Krizmanich Ann Bowman D. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE AND MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING. I. Employee Housing. There will be 3.0 residents for each homesite. The applicants employee commitment will be 2.0 employees at the moderate income level for the project. This commitment will be satisfied by a cash payment of twenty six thousand three hundred dollars ($26,300.00) to be paid in equal proportions at the time of the issuance of a residential building permit for each unit. The payment amount shall be adjusted to the moderate income cash in lieu of guidelines in effect at the time of payment. E. DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY. I. Density Reduction. This property is presently zoned RS-30, allowing one unit for each thirty (30) acres of property. It is believed that there is no density reduction for slopes over forty five (458) percent upon this property. The net zoning density is eight (8) units for two hundred sixt~n;2~269-tea tensity reduction is therefore calculated as follows: Net Allowable Density = 8 units Proposed Density = 2 units Unit Density Reduction = 6 units Density Reduction = 75 percent G.M.P. Points: 0 - 503 Reduction = 1 pt/53 reduction = 10 pts. 51 - 783 Reduction = 1.5 pt/53 reduction = 6 pts. Total G. N,. P. Points = 16 pts: 12 ~ ~.1. ;~: ~, _ 1 ~~l LAW OFFICES ~~ BROOKE A. PETERSON ' JAN 131987 A PROFESSIONALCORPORATION '. 315 EAST HVMAN AVENUE ~.: ~., ,__.,.__ ASPEN. COLORADO 01611 13031925-8166 January 9, 1987 Ms. Peggy Seeger Pitkin County Building Department 517 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Robert N. Jensen Employee Housing Fees Dear Feggy, In order to straighten out the disagreement regarding Mr. Jensen's employee housing fees which are owing pursuant to the Resolution B6-99 granting G.M.P. approval to him for two (2) units on his property in Old Snowmass (a copy of which is enclosed), I am also enclosing a copy of the pertinent pages of Mr. Jensen's application where he agreed to pay the total sum of Twenty Six Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($26,300.00) in fulfillment of his employee housing obligations. I do not believe that this amount was questioned by staff upon review of Mr. Jensen's application, and the Resolution of approval certainly does not make approval conditioned upolt an agreement to pay any more than this amount. Accordingly, I must insist, given that Mr. Jensen has paid the sum of Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($13,300.00) to you under protest in order to fulfill his obligation for the first free market unit, that he be issued a rebate of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) immediately. Admittedly, this is a small amount, but Mr. Jensen and I feel that, by virtue of the sterilization of his property, he has already provided substantial benefits to the County. By a copy of this letter to Francis Krizmanich of the Planning Office, and Ann Bowman of the Housing Office, I am asking them to confirm to you my representations, and to please contact me immediately if they disagree with my position. Thank you for your assistance. Yours very trul BROOKE A. PET ~ON, A Profes na orpor lion By: _ __ _ r ke A. Pet rs n BAP:kl Enc. cc: Robert N. Jensen Francis Krizmanich Ann Bowman D. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE AND MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING. I. Employee Housing. There will be 3.0 residents for each homesite. The applicants employee commitment will be 2.0 employees at the moderate income level for the project. This commitment will be satisfied by a cash payment of twenty six thousand three hundred dollars ($26,300.00) to be paid in equal proportions at the time of the issuance of a residential building permit for each unit. The payment amount shall be adjusted to the moderate income cash in lieu of guidelines in effect at the time of payment. E. DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY. I. Density Reduction. This property is presently zoned RS-30, allowing one unit' for each thirty (30) acres of property. It is believed that there is no density reduction for slopes over forty five (458) percent upon this property. The net zoning density is eight (8) units for two hundred sixty nine (269) acres. The density reduction is therefore calculated as follows: Net Aiiowable Density = 8 units Proposed Density = 2 units Unit Density Reduction = 6 units Density Reduction = 75 percent G.M.P. Points: 0 - 502 Reduction = 1 pt/58 reduction = 10 pts. 51 - 78~ Reduction = 1.5 pt/5$ reduction = 6 pts. Total G. N,. P. Points = 16 pts: 12 MEMORANDDM T0: Board of County Commissioners ~-}~ FROM: Francis X. Krizmanich, Planning Office ~ I RE: Down Valley Growth Management Allotments DATE: September 22, 1986 The Down Valley Residential Growth Management Quota available for 1986 is 10 units. There were three applications submitted this year requesting a total of eight (8) units as follows: The River Road Ranch: 2 Units (1 employee, 1 free market Jensen 2 Units (2 free market) Aspen-Mass Ranch 4 Units (1 employee, 3 free market) All of the projects met the minimum scoring threshold. Because the Aspen-Mass application is also requesting rezoning and general submission approval, that application will be reviewed after the 30 day public notice requirement has been met. The River Road Ranch and the Jensen applications have received final 1041 Special Review approval by the Planning Commission and neither requires subdivision approval. Both of these projects may proceed once they have received their Growth Management allotments from the Board. The Planning Office has prepared a Resolution for your review and approval at today's hearing should you decide to forego the usual two week period between your final action and the passage of the resolution granting the allotments. Approving the resolution today would give the applicants two additional weeks to begin their house construction this year. FK.9 A G E N D A PITRIN COIINTY PLANNING AND 20NING COMMISSION September 16, 1986 - Tuesday 9:00 A. M. COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM COIINTY COIIRTHOIISE 506 E. Main Street REGIILAR MEETING I. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS II. PIIBLIC HEARING Q~i A. Pfister 1041 Geologic Hazard Review III. RESOLOTIONS A. 1986 Down Valley Residential GMP Scoring ~: (3cta- 9e --B. Aspen Mass Ranch Rezoning/1041~"Hazard Review w~~~ ~i ~~ j ~-C. The River Road Ranch 1041'Nazar-d Review.-~~1ir~,, N~c_t \~,,~ Jensen 1041 Hazard Review IV. NEW BOSINESS ~~ -~. Piffer 1041 Floodplain Hazard Review C'~a^^~` F~+ B. Gibbons 1041 Floodplain Hazard Review ~u <~{- V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Mt. Sopris Nordic Trails System --. B. Lewis GMP - Minor Amendment VI. ADJOIIRN MEETING P. COV RESOLDTION OF THE PITRIN COONTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE SCORING FOR THE 1986 PITRIN CODNTY DOWN VALLEY RESIDENTIAL GROfTTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION Resolution No. 86- WHEREAS, on June 1, 1986, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office did receive three (3) Pitkin County Down Valley Residential Growth Management applications submitted pursuant to Sectin 5- 510.5(a)(1) of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the applications received were as follows: Application Name Aspen-Mass Ranch The River Road Ranch Jensen Allocation Request 4 Units 2 Units 2 Units and WHEREAS, the quota available for allocation in 1986 is 12 units, since according to Section 5-510..2 of the Code, the 24 unit annual Down Valley quota must be reduced by the 12 units built in 1985 pursuant to exemptions from the quota system; and WHEREAS, on September 2, 1986, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") did conduct a public hearing pursuant to Section 5-510.5(a)(3) of the Code, requiring a public hearing be held in order to review growth management applications; and WHEREAS, at the above-ref erenced hearing, the Commission did review the growth management applications and gave consideration 1986 Down Valley Residential Growth Management Scoring Resolution No. 86- Page 2 to evidence and testimony presented at said hearing.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVID by the Commission that it does hereby establish the following scoring of the Pit kin Co unty Down Valley Residential Growth Management application submissi- ons: Project Name Total Score The River Road Ranch 92.2 Jensen 91.3 Aspen-Mass Ranch 80.2 AND IN SOPPORT THEREOF, incorporated by this reference the Commission's Tally Sheets as Exhibit "A", attached hereto. BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Commission does hereby forward said scoring to the Board of County Commissioners for their action with respect to the granting of a 1986 Down Valley Residential Growth Management Allocation.. BE IT PINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that since the above scores are all above the mininum threshold and the quota available exceeds that requested, it does hereby recommend to the Board that the following allocations be granted subject to the applicants' receiving approval of their respective associated reviews from the Board of County Commissioners: 1986 Down Valley Residential Growth Management Scoring Resolution No. 86- Page 3 Project Name The River Road Ranch Jensen Aspen-Mass 2 Units 2 Units 4 Units APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on September 16, 19 E6. ATTEST: Barbara Norris, Records Administrator Assistant •• Allocation of Dnits By PITKIN COIINTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMAISSION Suzanne Caskey Chairperson FR.15 7 ~_ 1986 DO{INVALLEY AREA RESIDENTIAL 6MP APPLICATION TALLY SHEET Protect Mace: ASPEN-NASS RANCH Date: Septeober 9, 1986 P62 VOIHf6 M98ER5 1 2 3 4 5 AYEAA6E HSTIPLIER TOTAL Casket Tkehan Knowlton Reser Dobrovolrry (XI 1. AVAILABILITY OF PIbLIC AND PRIVATE FACILITIES AND SERVICES a. Water 1 _. _.. _._ 2 ._ _ _ _ .2 _ 2 1 1_6 1 b. Seaer 2 2 3 2 2 2_2 1 c. Story Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2_0 1 d. Fire Protection 1 2 2 2 2 I_8 1 e. School Systea 2 2 2 2 2 2_0 1 f. Recreational Facilities 3 3 3 3 3 3_0 1 g. Road SYStea 2 2 2 2 2 2_D 3 h. Public d Private Transit 2 2 3 2 2 2_2 3 Subtotal 2. EFFECT UPCN Tlf ENVIRO~ifNT a. Air Pollution 3 3 2 3 3 2_0" 2 b. Hater Resources 2 2 1 2 2 1_8 3 c. Open Space 2 2 1 2 0 1_4 3 d. Natural d Nan-Nade Hatards 2 2 1 2 2 1_8 3 e. Viwal Wlnerability 0 2 1 1 0 _D 3 f. NildliFe Habitat 2 2 1 2 2 1_8 3 g. Natural Vegetation 2 2 I 2 I 1_6 3 Subtotal 3. RESOIRICE CONSERVATION NFASIIRES a. Energy Conservation 1 I 1 1 1 1_0 2 b. Water Conservation/Wastewater 1 2 1 1 I 1_2 2 Reuse c. Agricultural Land Preservatia~ 1 2 0 1 0 Subtotal 4. EMPLOYEE NOUSINB PROVISION 15 15 15 15 15 5. DEVELOPlENf BELON ALLONABLE DENSITY 0 0 0 0 0 i0TA1 Minim Threshold = .& 3 2.4 6.8OF 15.E 1 15_00+ .~ 1 .00t 80.20- 80.00 ~~ 1986 OOIANALLEY AREA RESIDENTIAL 6MP APPLICATION ., v TALLY SLEET Protect Nacre: TIE RIVER ROAD RANCH Rate: September 2. 1986 P62 VOINTG MEIBERS 1 2 3 4 5 AVERAGE HULTIPLIER TOTAL Casket Meehan Krioodtan Reser Dabrovolny (XI 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FACILITIES AND SERVICES a. Mater 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 1 b. Sever 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 1 c. Store Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 1 d. fire Protection 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 1 e. School Systeo 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 1 f. Recreational Facilities 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 1 g. Road Systea 2 2 2 1 2 1_8 3 h. Public 6 Private Transit 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 3 Subtotal 2. EFFECT UPON TIE ENVIROtiENT a. Air Pollution 2 2 1 1 2 1.6 2 b. Hater Resairces 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 3 c. Open Space 2 2 2 2 1 1_8 3 d. Natural 6 Man-Nade Harards 2 2 I 2 2 l.A 3 e. Visual Wlnerability 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 3 f. Nildlife Habitat 2 2 1 3 l 1.8 S g. Natural Vegetation 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 3 Subtotal 3. RESOIBEf COt1SERVATION MEASURES a. Energy Conservation 1 1 2 1 1 1_2 2 b. Hater Conservation~Nasteuater 2 2 2 2 1 I8 2 Reuse c. Agricultural Land Preservation ? ? ? ? 1 SLbtotal 4. ElB'lOYEE HOUSING PROVISION 20 20 20 20 20 5. DEYELOPNEI4I BELOM A110NABLE DQSITY 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Niniaue Threshold 1_B 3 5_4 11.40E 20.0 1 20_00+ .0 1 .00E 4120= 00.00 1 S .: 1986 DOIRtYALLEY AREA RESIDENRAL 6MP APPLICATION TALLY SHFfT Project Naoe: JEIISEN Date: Septerber 2. 19C6 P62 VOINT6 fQBERS 1 2 3 4 5 AVERAGE NIILTIPLIER TOTAL Casket Meehan Kelton Reuer Dobrovolny )X) 1. AVAILABILITY OF PIALIC AND PRIVATE FACILITIES AND SERVICES a. Water ? ? ? ? ? 2_0 1 b. Sever 2 2 2 2 2 2_0 1 t. Story Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2_0 1 d. Fire Protecticn 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 1 e. School SYStea 2 2 2 3 2 2.2 1 f. Recreational fzciiities 2 2 2 2 2 2_0 1 g. Road Systen 2 2 I 2 2 1_8 3 h. Public d Private Transit 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 3 Subtotal 2. EFFECT UPON Tlf ENVIRONMENT a. Air Pollution 1 2 1 1 1 L2 2 b. Water Resources 2 2 I 2 2 I_3 3 c. Open Space 3 3 1 3 2 2_4 3 d. Natural dMan-Ma:le Haiards 2 2 1 2 2 1.S 3 e. Visual VulrierabilitY P ? 2 1 1 1_ti 3 f. Wildlife Habitat 1 1 0 2 l LO 3 g. Natural Vegetation 1 1 2 2 1 l.d 3 Subtotal 3. RESOURCE COHSERVATIQV MEASURES a. Energy Conservation 1 1 1 1 1 1_0 2 b. Water ConservatianjWastewater 0 0 0 0 1 _2 2 Reuse ,- w:_ c. Agricultwal Land Preservatim ? ? 1 ? ? Subtotal 4. EMPLOYEE IIOUSIN6 PRDVISION 10 10 10 10 10 5. DEYELOPIflTT 8EL011 ALLONABLE DENSITY 17.5 17.5 11.5 17.5 17.5 TOTAL Minim Threshold 1_a 3 5_4 7.aQF 10.0 1 10_00+ 17.5 1 17_50+ 91.30= 80.00 A G E N D A ~~ . PZTRIN COQNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 2, 1986 -Tuesday 9:00 A..M.. COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM COQNTY COQRTHOUSE 506 E._ Main Street REGQLAR MEETING I~ COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS II.. MINUTES A~ March 11, 1968 B., July 22, 1986 C~ August 5, 1986 III RESOLDTION ~!°'' .~-A~ Timroth Scenic Foreground Overlay Review IVY NEW BOSINESS .;~i„a1.- l :'• '"' ~~ ~~/''`~ ~A_ Aspen Mass Ranch General Submission~1041~Hazard Review ~_ , , t~) ?. ~-c~ ~B. Jensen 1041 Hazard Review ~~ r ~C_ .The River"Road Ranch/1041 ~Ha fard Review ,i ('Y _ V.. POBLIC HEARING A. 1986 Down Valley Residential GMP Scoring Session i='• ;, ~_ 1. River Road Ranch Residential GMP ~ 2~ Jensen GMP 3~ Aspen Mass Ranch GMP VI. ADJOORN MEETING ~, T0: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Francis Rrizmanich, Planning Office RE: Jensen 1041 Hazard Review DATE: September 2, 1986 APPLICANT: Robert N. Jensen REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting 1041 Hazard Review approval for two residential homesites on a 269 acre parcel located on Snowmass Creek Road adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Windstar property.. ZONING: The property is zoned RS-30 PUD and is 260 acres in s iz e.. WATER: Water is to be provided by individual wells for each residence.. SEWER: Sewage is proposed to be treated by individual septic systems.. ACCESS: Access to each site will be via individual pre-existing driveways.. No new road cuts are proposed. MAJOR ISSOES AND CONCERNS: A, Referral Agency Comments: _ 1. Office of the State Engineer - In a letter dated August 8, 1986, Hal Simpson commented that sufficient well permits are available for the proposed development and he recommends approval. 2.. Colorado Geological Survey - In a letter dated August 13, 1986 (attached) Jeff Hynes commented that the recommendations of the geologic report should be incor- porated into the project. 3. County Environmental Coordinator - In a memo dated July 24 1986, Mark Fuller submitted the following comments: "The division of this property into two and the concurrent proportional division of the water rights thereon may create difficulty in future irrigation.. Any approvals must be conditioned on ~, , weed control with the County or a private contrac- tor or by demonstrating a willingness or ability to control weeds on his property prior to and following construction.. 3.. County Environmental Health Department - In a memo dated August 19, 1986 (attached) Bob Nelson submitted the following comments: o Mater Supply - Water is to be supplied from a well already constructed on the property.. Water quantity should be periodically verified. Bacteriological and chemical tests of water quality should be run and completed as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy.. o Septic System - A permit to w nstruct a relatively conventional septic system for this development can be granted if this project receives develop- ment approval.. The applicant should be aware of the requirement of obtaining a burning permit from this office and should selectively burn only small amounts of area each day to minimize air quality impacts.. 4.. County Planning Engineer - In a memo dated August 13, 1986 (attached), Tom Newland comments that the proposed driveway will meet County Standards.. In addition, Tom recommends that the recommendations of Dr.. Lampiris should be follow ed to mitigate potential geologic hazards.. B1 STAFF COMMENTS: This appl ication is requesting 1041 Geologic Hazard Review approval for the construction of one (1) "free market" residence and one (1) "employee unit" within an agricultural outbuilding on a 20..8 acre, AF-1 zoned parcel.. _ The applicant has submitted a geologic report by Nicholas Lampiris which contains the following reconunendations: 1. Landscaping at th e rear of the home should be designed to conduct any excess runoff water around the site, preferably to the west where there is a topographically lower area.. 2.. Site specific soils engineering studies must be performed to insure proper fo undation design.. These recommendations appear to be appropriate and should be made conditions of this applicatio n.. The Planning Office agrees with the recommendations of the Environmental Health Department concerning water supply and open burning. These rewmmendations should be made condi- tions for this project.. The Planning Office also agrees with the rewmmendations of Mark Fuller concerning the applicant providing a commitment to control weeds on his property.. We do not agree with Mark's recommendation to prohibit dogs as this property is not within a mapped wildlife area.. In summary, the Planning Office opinion is that this project complies with applicable 1041 Geologic Hazard Review requirements subject to the previously noted conditions.. RECOMlIENDATION: The Planning Office rewmmends that the Planning Commission grant 1041 Geolo gic Hazard Review approval to the applicant subject to the following w nditions: 1.. Prior to issuance of any Building Permits, the Applicant shall record a 24" x 36° mylar site plan which meets the approval of the Planning Office and County Attorney.. Said site plan shall include the Building Envelopes and access drives as represented by the Applicant.. 2.. The Applicant shall control weed infestation on his property prior to and following construction activities.. 3.. A verification of water quantity and bacteriological and chemical tests of drinking water quality shall be completed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for either residence.. 4.. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the geolooic report which include: a.. Landscaping at the rear of the homes shall be designed to conduct any excess runoff water around the home sites, preferably to the west where there is a topo- graphically lower area. b.. A site specific soils engineering study shall be conducted to insure proper foundation design.. 5.. The Applicant shall obtain a burnino permit from the Environmental Health Department prior to conducting any open burning on the site. 6.. The applicant shall obtain two residential allotments from the Board of County Commissioners prior to final approval of this application.. FK.24 ,, of c~< '~~' OR9 RICHARD D. LAMM ye ~ ~ Governor *~b. .~ *!876 x OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303)866-3581 August 8, 1986 Mr. Francis Krizmanich Pitkin County Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 JERIS A. DANIELSON Slate Engineer D ~S~~al3~(~~ ~i4 II~~ Re: Jensen GMP Sec. 2, 3, & 11, T9S, R86W Dear Mr. Krizmanich: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal for two single-family homes and one employee home on 269 acres. The proposed source of water supply would be individual wells. The applicants already have constructed one well for homesite 1, permit no. 141404. Permit no. 141404 was issued allowing one well on 35.1 acres. The 35.1 acres identified on the permit appears to be a part of the 269 acres. The permit area includes homesite 1. In accordance with statute, a domestic well permit presently can be issued on other tracts of 35 acres or more wholly owned by the applicant. Since the property includes 269 acres, sufficient domestic well permits are presently available for the proposed development and we recommend approval. Please note that we will not issue a well permit for any part of a tract denoted by another well permit. Sincerely, ,~/av v . ,»~,... Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Deputy State Engineer HDS/JRH:ma/8160H cc: Steve Lautenschlager RICHARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR August 13, 1986 ~~J r'l~ PI-87-0001 ~~I pE' COO ~~,\~~J~~)J PI-87-0002 He j~9o PI-87-0003 i '~ * JOHN W. ROLD ~ ~M• * DIRECTOR x /Q 76 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ?15 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 13/3 SHERMAN STREET ' DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611 Mr. Francis Krizmanich Pitkin County Planning 506 East Main Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Krizmanich: RE: DOWN VALLEY RESIDENTIAL GMP, GEOLOGIC REVIEW We have reviewed the materials submitted on the three proposals involved in the Down Vally GMP Competition and the general and engineering geo- logy of the three sites. We concur with the general findings and conclusions found in the various reports presented for the tracts and their respective development propo- sals. Of the recommendations offered by Nick Laupiris on the various sites, all should be observed and incorporated into the detailed development plans. We would like to reiterate the cautionary note he made concern- ing the building setbacks from the steep slope of the river valley at Aspen-Mass Ranch and the care required in locating the individual sep- tic systems on this parcel. The clustering concept causes the effective density of the four unre- stricted units to be about 2-2.5 acre/unit. Additional consideration needs to be given to the wells downslope of the proposed septic fields and the potential for partially treated sewage to "daylight" on the steep slope just below the proposed structures. In summary, we feel that there are no geology-related problems associated with any of the three proposals to render them infeasible, but careful attention will be required to resolve the septic waste disposal issues on the Aspen-Mass Ranch tract. Yours very truly, //~_/ //~V.jc-P~~~ Jeffrey L~ Sr. Engineering Geologist d1r:JLH-87-012 G E O L O G Y STORYOFTHEPAST...KEYTOTHEFUTURE <, pitkin county 506 east main street ado 81611 T0: FRANCIS KRIZMANY~CFJ Y / FROM: MARK FULLER ~,,~v ~ , p~~~ae MEMORANDUM I ~ Z 9 ~r RE: DOWNVALLEY GMP APPLICATIONS DATE: 7/24/86 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1.) Jensen ;~ .: The division of this property into two and the concurrent proportional division of the water rights thereon may create difficulty in future irrigation. Any approvals must be condi- tioned on full and regular continued irrigation according to historic practices. The application makes no commitment as to how the second house will be provided water. The 25 gallon-per- minute production from the existing well on Homesite One is probably adequate for two houses and such dual use would elimin- ate the need for new well development and consequent development of an augmentation plan and possible loss of irrigated land. This water supply plan should be proposed as a condition of approval. It is also possible that the existing pond on the property could be used as an augmentation structure. I would also recommend that vegetative screening around the residences and ranch buildings and a dog prohibition be added as conditions in order to maximize protection of adjacent wildlife migration routes. 2. River Road Ranch There do not seem to be any major concerns regarding the development of this property with the possible exception of wildlife impacts. Although the property is clearly not within critical elk or deer habitat, adjacent habitats have become stressed in recent years due to road and residential development elsewhere in the valley, thus justifying wildlife protection measures in adjacent areas. Therefore, dogs should be prohibited from this development to assure the continued usefulness of adjacent habitats. Also given the weed-infested nature of the River Road area, the developer should commit to a weed control effort by pledging to either contract for weed control with the County or a private contractor or by demonstrating a willingness and ability to control weeds on his property prior to and follow- MF TO FK GMP APPLICATIONS JULY 28, 1986 PAGE 2 ing construction. 3. Aspen Mass Group Given the visual vulnerability of this site it is critical that any development be strictly controlled in terms of building size and height. Although the on-site geography and vegetation offer some protection, the home sites will be visible from Highway 82 and elsewhere in the valley and both a specific building height limitation and improved screening from the highway side should be conditions of approval. This is particula- rly true of the agricultural outbuildings as they tend to have a more monolithic design and subsequently higher visual impact. The undeveloped portions of this property, particularly the area nearest the Smith Hill Road that were recently filled, are weed infested and do not appear to be well-maintained. The developer has provided assurances that these areas will be rehabilitated in the future and should also specify seed mixtur- es, maintenance plans, a commitment to treat weed infestations, and assurance that the property has adequate water rights to keep this area irrigated as well as other pasturelands. The application does not indicate how much land might be lost from irrigation as a result of the transfer of existing irrigat- ion water rights to domestic well uses. This is important not only in assuring that there is adequate water to the subdivision but also in confirming that existing irrigation uses can be continued. The application also does not state where the proposed storage tank will be located and the potential impact of this structure. The application makes mention of pedestrian and equestrian trials. It should be clarified that these trail(s) will be open and available to the public at such time es the County wishes, that is, when and if a connecting trail is available to the south and east. In the meantime, the applicant should make the trail _from their property to the Smith Bridge available to the public as an alternative access to the Rio Grande Trail and True Smith Park. 4. Hunter Creek Townhomes The applicant states that the proposed development will improve the air quality of the site. The replacement of the existing single-family residence with seven woodburning devices plus the added auto-generated air pollution contradicts this assertion and indicates that this development will contribute to air quality problems in the Smuggler area and in the metro area in general. The applicant asserts that a trail easement will be provided to allow for Hunter Creek access with the exception of a 150 foot section. The deletion of this section may effectively negate the value of the easement and this issue should be resolved before MF TO FK GMP APPLICATIONS JULY 28, 1986 PAGE 3 any value is attached to the proposed easement. It should also be noted that this development, while it may not in itself cause any severe environmental problems, will add to the congestion and loss of open space that has recently characte- rized the Smuggler area. ~ ASPEN~PITKIN v ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office FROM: Bob Nelson, Department of Environmental Health DATE: August 19, 1986 RE: Jensen Residential GMP/General Submission/1041 Hazard Review This department has reviewed the recently forwarded general submission application for compliance with Colorado Department of Health Regulations, local requirements, and those specific sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code under our jurisdic- tion. We present the following review comments for your consid- eration regarding the referenced proposal: 1. WATER SUPPLY Water is to be supplied from individual wells, one of which is constructed on the property. The applicant has provided the attached information which reports this well yield at 13.8 gallons per minute. This is a sufficient quantity for a single family residence, and the geologic report indicates that a similar well could be developed for the other homesite. Further, Mr. Jensen had the developed well tested for bacteriological quality on August 14, 1986 and the results meet established standard for coliform organisms. However, there is no supporting data or documents regarding the chemical quality of the source. This should be done prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy if the this proposal is approved and residences eventually constructed. In conclusion, we anticipate that the two wells will be a satisfactory source of drinking water, and have no information which would lead us to other conclusions about this project. SEWAGE DISPOSAL The application indicates that the wastewater will be disposed of by means of individual septic systems and absorption fields. The owner has requested our input regarding the construction of such systems and we have completed several site visits in the last year. Our inspections and soil tests of Homesite #1 indicated that observed in the general soil conditions correlated fairly well with the reported typical characteristics of the area soil type, '130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 6'16'1'1 303/925-2020 Jensen GP1P/1041 Review August 19, 1986 Page 2 as indicated on the Soil Conservation Service maps (Soil Type 46D - A clay loam and silty clay loam with slow permeability and a high shrink-swell potential). Typically, this type of soil can present some minor problems in the construction of a sewage disposal system due to slow percolation rates. However, in this case, the Chen and Associates subsurface study submitted to this office in conjunction with a septic system permit application, indicates that the specific soil within the building envelope of Homesite #1 is more sandy than usually encountered within this mapped unit. As a result of the sand content, the report indicated that this particular soil "demonstrated only low to minor swell potential after wetting". This was confirmed with the measured rates of 35 minutes per inch with little swelling to interfere and slow the rate of water absorption. It is the conclusion of this department that a conventional septic system, consisting of several hundred lineal feet of trench can be constructed to meet County regulations. It is important to note that the irrigation water must be intercepted and diverted away from the absorption field of the sewage disposal system with surface and subsurface interceptor drains in order to prevent hydraulic loading and soil saturation and to insure proper function. We have also inspected Homesite #2, but have not conducted any soil tests. The geologic report of Nick Lampiris, dated July 7, 1986, apparently addresses the lower building site. Lampiris indicates that the soils should be permeable, but that a poten- tial for high groundwater is anticipated, particularly during irrigation. The reported typical characteristics of the area soil type, as indicated on the Soil Conservation Service maps for the lower homesite is Soil Type 56D-The Barnette-Libeg Associa- tion. The Libeg portion of this soil, a loam to clay loam with moderately rapid permeability and a moderate shrink-swell potential, is by far the more suitable for septic system instal- lation. Typically, this Libeg-typed soil, which appears to be prevalent in the area of the building envelope, can be used successfully for the construction of a sewage disposal system which meets Pitkin County regulations. However, due to potential water table problems which have been indicated in the Lampiris report, and to the moderately slow and often erratic percolation rates for those portions of the site which might consist of the Burnette part of the associated soils, further site investigation and soil testing is warranted. It is our opinion that a some type of onsite wastewater disposal system can be developed, and that more conventional septic systems most likely will be- permitted under county regulations if Libeg soils are present adjacent to the home. Again, however, the control of the irriga- tion water is critical to the operation of the sewage disposal system during the Summer. Jensen GMP/1041 Review August 19, 1986 Page 3 Further, water conservation methods, not suggested or indicated as being employed in the submitted documents of the application, could reduce the sewage disposal system size and are recommended. There is no indication if any water-conserving fixtures are to be provided or if other methods are to be utilized to conserve groundwater. ~- 3. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS The development proposal is small and we agree with the conclu- sions in the application that there will not be any resulting adverse water quality impacts from the proposal. The applicant has improved the erosion and reduced the amount of sediment added to the Snowmass Creek drainage with ditch repairs, construction of a pond, and a more conscientious application of irrigation water. 4. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS The development is in an area of the County where one fireplace and an unlimited number of wood stoves are permitted. Limiting each structure to one fireplace slightly exceeds these minimum requirements of County air pollution regulations. Gravel, or "construction materials" on the driveway should minimize the amount of dust generated from the few vehicle trips anticipated. We do request that the applicant obtain burning permits for the agricultural operations and limit this burning in terms of quantity and duration, and to times of the year when the pollu- tion potential is minimized by weather conditions. ~_ MEMORANDUM T0: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office FROM: Tom Newland, Planning Engineer RE: Jensen GMP/General Submission DATE: August 11, 1986 After reviewing the submission presented by Mr. Peterson on behalf of the applicant, I would like to forward to you the following comments: GMP REVIEW Storm Drainage: The applicant mentions the granting of a construction license to the county as a means of solving the potential storm drainage problem on Snowmass Creek Road (county road #11). Perhaps the applicant could make more of a commitment towards solving the potential drainage problem by installing the drainage ditches along the county road. Road System: Although the applicant has upgraded the access road to Homesite #1, it does not conform to county standards at the intersection with Snowmass Creek Road. In addition, the submis- sion proposes an another driveway for the single additional free market dwelling unit. The submission does show where the roads to be used as driveways currently exist on the property and mentions that they are historic points of access. However, the submission does not show "a road and access plan detailing road specifications, alignments and relation to existing roadways" as requested by sub-section 5- 203:1(a). Therefore, I cannot determine if the internal road system will conform to county standards. Agricultural Lands Preservation: It appears that the siting of Homesite #2 goes against administrative guideline (a) listed in sub-section 5-104.1 of the county land use code. This guideline states that the proposed development must be placed in a manner that will not cause the division of agricultural lands into small parcels that will be hard to manage. Perhaps the Homesite #2 building envelope could be removed from the center if a 70 acre irrigated meadow and placed on a corner of the lot, resulting in less overall impact to the irrigated meadow. Scenic Quality: The submission states that the two homesites will have minimal visual impact from the Snowmass Creek Road. It does not state that both sites, especially homesite #1, are very visable from the Watson Divide Road. 1041 HAZARD REVIEW Slopes over 30X: The proposed development will not use or cross the steep slopes of the property with any form of construction. The access road to homesite #1 does cross these steep slopes, but is a pre-existing access already in place. M E M O R A N D U M TO: FRANCIS RRIZMANICH, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER RE: JENSEN GMP/GENERAL SUBMISSION DATE: JULY 20, 1986 ISSUE: Is the proposed employee housing proposal adequate for the projects needs? BACKGROUND: The project is proposed on a 269 acre parcel located along Snowmass Creek Road in Old Snowmass. The property is contiguous to the Windstar property on the west and north sides ( a parcel in Sections 2, 3 and 11, T 9 S, R 86 W of the 6th P.M.>. The applicant is requesting a 3 unit allocation from the Down Valley quota. The project is to consist of 2 free market units and will provide for 2 emp. by cash-in-lieu. The applicants represents that there will be 3.0 residents for the homesite. The applicant is proposing 2.0 as the employee commitment and will house 2.0 employees at the moderate income level for the project. The applicant is proposing to satisfy this commitment by a cash payment of twenty six thousand three hundred dollars- (526,300.00) to be paid in equal proportions at the time of the issuance of a residential building permit for each unit. The payment amount shall be adjusted to the moderate income cash in lieu of guidelines in effect at the time or payment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff agrees the employee generation, monies owed. The moderate currently 513,300 (2 emp. moderate income therefore should be 526,600 instead applicant does go on to will be adjusted to mode issuance of building per staff recommendation is to as proposed. with the computation of not the computation of income guidelines are x 13,300 = 526,600) for the proposed payment of 26,300. However the say the payment amount rate income at time of mit and therefore the approve the application ACTION NEEDED: Approval of staff recommendation. ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER PO. Box 9910 Aspen, Colorzdo 81fi11 13071 925-8885 MEMORANDUM TO: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office FROM: Steve Standi ford, Director RE: 1986 Down Valley Area County Residential GMP Competition Application Review comments on energy related aspects of Jensen GMP/General Submission INSULATION The project requirement to achieve energy savings of 25~ above the county's minimum requirement is commendable. We assume this statement means the project wiZ1, for example, increase the wall insulation R-values by 25~. It would help if the proposal would define the following: the various R-values of the building envelope; the type of glazing; and other building components that will Zead to achieving their overall goal of energy efficiency. SOLAR ENERGY The use of solar energy is not discussed in the proposal. We can only guess what they are thinking both for passive solar design features and/or any active solar devices. WATER CONSERVATION We would Iike to see a better definition of the type of showerheads, faucets, and toilets that will be used. This would allow us to determine just how efficiently the homes will use water. On page 8 under Water Resources they state, "It is anticipated that each of the homes will be designed to take advantage as much as possible of energy conservation features." We would prefer the proposal to replace the word "anticipated" with "required". The phrase, "as much as possible", also Zacks definition. A Branch of the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation Nicholas Lampiris, PhD CONSULTING GEOLOGIST P O-BOX 10935 ASPEN,COLORADO 81612 X3031 %1-3600 9256020 ASPEN OfFlCE April 14, 1986 Brooke Peterson X15 E. Hyman Suite '05 Aspen, CO. 61611 RE: Jensen Property/Driveway Dear Mr. Peterson: I have viewed the driveway accessing the upper meadow where the Jensen improvements are. The driveway is cut in Quaternary age glacio-fluvial terrace deposits which consist of poorly sorted and poorly graded clays, silts, sands, gravels and cobbles. Although the driveway is a little steep, approaching sight to ten percent grade in one stretch, it is well constructed with a good base. There is no evidence of slumping or other instability at this time on the cut bank side of the road. The underlying bedrock: in this area is the Cretaceous age Mancos Shale which dips approximately twenty degrees to the south, or generally into the hillside. On balance, this is a positive factor, but the eroded surface of the shale beneath the glacial deposits probably slopes into the valley. This, in conjunction with an irrigation ditch which crosses the hillside above the steeper part of the access road, could cause instability and potential failures along the road cut. This potential, of course, would be magnified if the ditch itself were to fail. My recommendations are to irrigate this section of the pasture on the terrace above the road carefully, and to leave water in this particular ditch for as short a period of time as possible. Obviously, the ditch should be well maintained so as to keep the potential for failure at a minimum. In the fall, after the irrigation season is over, this portion of the ditch above the road should be made to catch and carry as little spring runoff as possible. Despite possibly decades of irrigation at this site, I saw no significant signs of instability along the access road and expect little trouble with mass wasting, especially if the above recommendations are followed. Please contact me if there are further questions. S/i~n c e`Ir`~e l y ,/~y N hol ~ Lamp' a N1/cik Consulting Geologist Nicholas Lampiris, PhD OONSVLTING GEOLOGIST ~.0. BO% 10935 ASGE N, COLORADO 8I6 i i (30J) 963J600 925L020 A9~Ery OFFgE July 7, 1986 ErooL::e Peterson X15 E. Hyman Suite ?i)5 Aspen, CO. 81611 kE: Snowmass CreeLr, 1G41 Study Dear Mr. Peterson: I have completed my geologic investigation of Lot 12 of the Jensen property in the Snowmass Creek valley. The roughly triangular shaped lot is approximately 7U acres along the west side o{ the Snowmass Creek Food. This is within the SE 1/4 of Sec. Woody Creek 7 ' T 9 S' k 85 W of the Si::th P. M., within the None o{ the 1/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado, property goes beyond the base of the steep hillside to the west. The building site as shown on the accompanying map is near the west central portion of the lot. The topography of the proposed site consists of irrigated pasture interspersed with groves o{ scrub oak. The site is quite flat and is more than 80 feet away from the base of the steep hillside. There are no e;;fisting structures on this site. The geology of the site consists of siarficial deposits of ~ glacio-fluvial origin of Quaternary age, This is in the {orm o{ poorly sorted silts, sands and gravels on a terrace above the present level of Snowmass Creek. :Underlying this material, perhaps 50 to lOU feet below the surface, is the Cretaceous age Mancos Shale which in this general area dips aPPro:rimately 15 degrees to the south; There are no other geologic structures which could adversely affect this site. The building site as depicted is far enough away from the base o{ the steep hill to the west so-as not to be affected by any gravity related phenomena there. There are no significant gullies on that hillside which could have an affect on the building site. This is an e;<cellent site for the development of a single family dwelling, but high ground water conditions should be e;<pected, especially during irrigation season. It will still be Necessary to have a soils engineering study prepared to insure proper foundation design and to protect against potential high ground water conditions. ., 4-+ July 7, 1986 Snowmass Creek 1041 Study Fage Two Access to the site should be easily attainable off the Snowmass Creek Road on grade to the site, but several culverts may be necessary because of the irrigation system in place. Water for domestic use should be available through the drilling of a well to a depth of perhaps 11~U feet. l4aste disposal should be available through the construction of a septic system with accompanying leach field in these permeable soils. Once again, the complicating factor may be the potential for high ground watery the Pitl:in County Sanitation Engineer should be consulted for his specific recommendations. Please contact me if you have further questions. Sincerely, ~ ,) NicholSaGs Lampi~`is Consulting Geologist encl. NL/cl k. PITRIN COONTY DOWN VALLEY AREA RESIDENTIAL GMP APPLICATIONS SCORE SHEET Name of Project: JENSEN Date: 9/2/86 _ 1. AVAILABILITY OF POBLIC AND PRIVATE FACILITIES AND SERVICES.. The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates total impracticality of providing service.. 1 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased public expense, or proposed services do not meet the standards of the Land Use Code.. 2 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general or service improvements simply meet the standards of the Land Use Code.. 3 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area or service improvements go beyond the standards of the Land Use Code. The following facilities and services shall be rated accordingly: (i) WATER -Considering the ability of the water system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.. Considering the commitment of the applicant to convey any unused water rights to the water system and the commitment by the applicant to maintain the availability of water for irrigation purposes, whenever appro- priate. if a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being proposed and the demonstration of water rights to serve the development and to attain any necessary water augmentation plan.. (Multiplier - 1) ~_ COMMENT: The applicant will use two wells to serve the two lots be;ng~~gnested The State Division of Water Resources has Indira+aA that two wells can be pgrmitted as long as they are not lneateA nn tt,a same 35 acre parcel. __- - __ (ii) SEWER (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the sewer system to serve the development, and if a public system, the applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or treatment plan upgrading required to serve the development.. If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability of the system being pro posed.. 1986 Score Sheet Residential GDiP Applications Page 2 (Multiplier - 1) ~_ COMMENT: The applicant will use individual sewage disposal gystems to serve each residence. (iii) STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the development site.- If the development requires use of the County's drainage system, considering the commitment of the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facil ities and to maintain the system over the long term. (Multiplier - 1) ~ COMMENT: (iv) FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the ability of the appropriate Fire Protection District to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of establishing a new station, adding equipment or personnel or making capital improvements.. Considering the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows.. Considering the w mmitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessitated by the proj ect, including, but not limited to, f ire hydrants and water storage tanks.. (Multiplier - 1) ~,_ COMMENT: T_e proposed homesites are approximately three miles (v) SCHOOL SYSTEM - Considering the ability of the school system to accommodate additional students without extensive busing and additional capital improvements.. (Multiplier - 1) _~ COMPIENT: The two proposed homesites should have a min~mat (vi) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES - Considering the availability and 1986 Soore Sheet Residential GMP Applications Page 3 location of parks and other recreational facilities (on and off site) and the ability of public facilities to accommodate additional users without acquisition of land or making capital improvements.. (Multiplier - 1) ~_ COMMENT: (vii) ROAD SYSTEM - Considering the ability of the public road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development within acceptable levels of safety,. as defined in 1982 Pitkin County Road Standards and Specifications.. Considering the applicant's commitment to finance necessary road system improvements attributable to the proposed development.. (Multiplier - 3) ~_ (viii) PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TRANSIT SYSTEMS - Considering the proximity of the proposed development to existing transit routes and trail systems.. Considering the ability of the transit system to accommodate the proposed development without the need for additional facilities or route shifts.. Considering the commit- ment of the applicant to provide capital improvements (i.e.., bus shelter, trail w nnection spur) which enhance the service of the public and private transit systems to the proposed development.. (Multiplier - 3) ~_ COMMENT: The proiect is agriculturally oriented and will not rea~ii're pub~~c transit services The two promoted homes wits have minimal transit impacts 2. EFFECT OPON THE ENVIRONAENT - The Commission shall w nsider each application with respect to environmental impacts and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following schedule: 0 -- Indicates adverse environmental impacts due to applicant's unwillingness or inability to mitigate impacts or if inadequate 1986 Score Sheet Residential GMP Applications Page 4 mitigation measures proposed by the applicant. 1 -- Indicates minimal environmental impacts due to applicant's attempt to mitigate impacts, but lack of total mitigation.. 2 -- Indicates no adverse environmental impacts or applicant's complete mitigation of impacts or applicant's compliance with the standards of the Land Use Code. 3 -- Indicates beneficial environmental impacts or environmental improvement or applicant's demonstration of compliance beyond the standards of the Land Use Code. The following features shall be rated accordingly: (i) AIR POLLUTION - Considering the elimination of fireplaces and unpaved surfaces, use of mass transportation, and other tech- niques to reduce air pollution. (Multiplier - 2) _~ COMMENT: _The application "anticipates" one fireplace per (ii) WATER RESODRCES - Considering the extent to which the project will reduce and/or pollute surface and ground water supplies. (Pultiplier - 3) _~ COP'll~1ENT: The low density of this development ho~7d reGUl in no adverse water resource impacts_ (iii) OPEN SPACE - Considering the extent to which the project preserves usable and desirable public and private open space. (Multiplier - 3) ~_ COMMENT: (iv) NATQRAL AND MAN-MADE HAZARDS - Considering the extent to which the proposed development is free from airport flight hazards and natural hazards (including geologic hazards, floodplains, steep slopes, unstable soils, snow avalanche and wildfire hazard areas). ., 1986 Score Sheet Residential GMP Applications Page 5 _ (Multiplier - 3) ~_ COMMENT: The proposed homesites are not located within ha.ard areas. (v) VISIIAL VDLNERABILITY (maximum 3 points) considering the extent to which the groposal will leave unaltered the high quality visual features of the area.. (Multiplier - 3) _1_ COMMENT: (vi) FTILDLIFE HABITAT - Considering the extent to which (including dog control) the project accommodate existing wildlife habitat including game winter range, migration routes, calving areas, waterfowl habitat (winter and summer) and fisheries.. (Multiplier - 3) _~ (vii) (Multiplier - 3) -L COMMENT: _Homesite and access road construction will of ct on7v NATORAL VEGETATION - Considering the extent to which the development will preserve unique natural vegetation (especially trees) on the development site.. ~, , 1986 Score Sheet Residential GMP Applications Page 6 3. RESOIIRCE CONSERVATION MEASORES - The Commission shall consider each application with respect to proposed use of resource conservation measures and shall rate each development by assigning points accord- ing to the following schedule: _ 0 -- Indicates no oonservation features.. 1 -- Indicates standard m nservation features.. 2 -- Indicates outstanding cro nservation features.. The following features shall be rated accordingly: (i) ENERGY CONSERVATION - Considering the extent to which the applicant proposes to employ passive and/or active solar heating and cooling and thermal insulation measures beyond those required by the Building Code.. (Multiplier - 2) ~_ COMDIEN T (ii) WATER CONSERVATION/WASTEWATER REIISE - Considering the extent to which the applicant proposes to employ water conservation devices and wastewater reuse systems within the development rather than standard plumbing facilities.. (Multiplier - 2) _Q_ COMMENT: The applicant has stated that native plants will be nt;7;~PA ter,-Q;tP_ NO further discussion of water conservation lI1P.l SIIrPC VLfR Bf PCPfI*P(j (iii) AGRICIILTQRAL LAND PRESERVATION - Considering the extent to which the design of the applicant's development insures the preserva- tion of agricultural lands including, but not limited to, those which have been historically irrigated, as identified on the "Pitkin County Historically Irrigated Lands" map, available in the Planning Office, those used for food production, hay, grains and other feed production and those used for dry pasture and rangeland. (Multiplier - 3) ~ 1986 Score Residential Page 7 Sheet GMP Applications COMMENT: _The applicant has represented that 99 percent of the 4.. PROVISION OF LOW-, MODERATE-, AND MIDDLE-INCOME NOOSING - The Commission shall consider to what extent each development proposal will alleviate an identified critical shortage or low-, moderate- or middle-income housina.. Any applicant wishing to receive points under this section shall specify, in the application, the number of bedrooms within each unit within the proposed project, and the method (as identified in Section 5-300.4) by which the applicant will provide low-, moderate- or middle-income ho using.. The Commission shall assign points according to the following schedule (as limited by the determinations made by the Board accord- ing to the criteria outlined in the Land Use Code): (i) Low-Income Housing Points 3 points for each 58 of the project up to 308 of the total project 18 1 point for each 108 of the project from 31 to 1008 of the total project 7 (ii) Moderate-Income Housing Points 2 points for each 58 of the project up to 258 of the total project 10 1 point for each 158 of the project from 25 to 1008 of the total project 5 (iii) Middle-Income Housing Points 1 point for each 58 of the project up to 208 of the total project 4 1 point for each 208 of the project from 21 to 1008 of the total project 4 In order to determine what percent of the project is devoted to low-, moderate- and middle-income housing, the Commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a whole with the number of persons in each of the low-, moderate- and middle-income units (if any) using the following criteria (with no credit being given for any unit not meeting the most recently adopted guidelines of the Pitkin County Housing Authority, as adopted by the Board of 1986 Score Sheet Residential GMP Applications Page 8 County Commissioners): Studio 1.25 residents One Bedroom _ 1.75 residents Two Bedroom 2.25 residents Three Bedroom (or larger) 3.00 residents Dormitory By review of the Housing Authority (Multiplier - 1 ) 10 COMMENTS: Two free market homesites housing three (3) residents each are p~oppsed_ The applicant commits to provide cash-in- lieu for two (2) moderate income employees for an emp ov e provision of 25 nerrPnt 5. DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY - The Commission shall award points to any project which proposes to develop below the (net) allowable density in the applicable zone district. "Net allowable density" shall mear. that density allowed in the appropriate zone district reduced by any offset otherwise provided for in the Pitkin County Land Use Code (e..g., Section 3-8. 8), exclusive of the density associated with any deed-restricted housing which is provided according to Sections 5-300 ..4 (a) (3) , (a) (4) or (a) (5) of the Code. The applicant shall be required to provide a covenant or other guarantee that the density reduction will be maintain for the life of the project.. The Commission shall use the following formula in the award of points under this section: 0-50~ reduction = 1.0 point for each 58 density reduction _. (maximum 10 points) 51-808 reduction = 1.5 points for each 58 density reduction (maximum 9 points) 81-958 reduction = 2..0 points for each 58 density reduction (maximum 6 points) (Multiplier - 1) 17.5 COMMENT: ProjPe* will reGu~t in a 75 percent density reduction on 1986 Score Sheet Residential GMP Applications Page 9 POINTS (with multiplier): 1'. Availability of Public and Private Facilities and Services 21 2.. Effect Upon the Environment - ~~ 3. Resource Conservation Measures ~ 4._ Provision of Low-, Moderate- and Middle-Income Housing _j,~ 5. Development Below Allowable Density 17.5 T044~L 8R _ 5 Marne of Planning and Zoning Member: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office FR..22